The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee presides over the sixth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in Beijing, capital of China. Photo: Xinhua
Vigorous Chinese democracy vs aging Western one: Global Times editorial
"Whole-process people's democracy" has been officially written into the Communiqué of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. At Friday's press conference on the sixth plenum, the concept has been further clarified, which has garnered extensive attention from home and abroad.
Democracy is one of the important results of human society's development. It is destined to form different gene combinations in different social environments and manifest itself in various forms, just like that of plants and flowers.
The US and the West have always regarded themselves as property owners and missionaries of democracy, as if they are issuing democratic licenses to the world, preaching to people of other countries about how to be democratic and judging who is democratic and who is not. But they are no longer able to carry on such moves.
China has risen. We hold high the banner of people-centered socialist democracy, and develop an efficient market economy based on China's political system. We have rapidly improved livelihood and eliminated poverty, gaining remarkable and globally eye-catching economic and social achievements.
In this process, elements of democracy with Chinese characteristics have continued to develop and grow. Governments at various levels have been exploring how to make democracy truly effective in all areas. This has formed the goal-oriented democratic construction in which the people are masters of the country. From election to consultations, from policymaking to management and supervision, all have been carried out, upgraded and institutionalized under the promotion of China's fundamental political system. As a result, people's wishes and opinions can always be reported to governments at different levels rapidly. The Party's leadership has ensured that national governance always responds to the demands of the broadest masses of people and can make the most reasonable plan based on the interests of all groups in the society. This will make people the country's masters.
China has developed democracy, but avoided populist radicalism. Everyone has the right to share the fruits of national development but vicious conflicts have been prevented among different interests groups. Although people often express opinions on the internet, sometimes in a fierce manner, China's social governance has generally maintained order. There are very few disruptions caused by partial or large-scale disorder.
The US and the West still regard their democracy as a hallmark. Their political systems have been seriously aging after hundreds of years. Powerful Western interest groups seek to obtain from and exploit their systems in radical ways regardless of the damage they would cause, which has made Western-style democracy full of drawbacks such as populism, political struggles, derailed people participation, and manipulated and misguided elections.
Western-style democracy is still able to have a say in the international public opinion arena. It's because of the economic and social strength accumulated in history. Those countries are still the most developed ones, which has helped them conceal their ugliness and fool the world with their sophistries and cover-ups.
However, some Western elites are now a little bit panicked. They know the West is plagued by problematic politics and a sluggish economy. Meanwhile, they have seen the fast development of China. After the outbreak of COVID-19, China's "people first" political ideology has quickly transformed to great achievements in fighting the epidemic. They worry that if this continues, the fundamental flaws in their narratives about democracy will be exposed, and the perception that their political systems are "bad" will spread throughout the world.
The US and some Western countries in recent years have frantically increased their attacks on China's political system. Doing so is of no help to solve the decline of their own systems. The political dividends of Western-style democracy have already been seriously overdrawn. Now the shortcomings of Western-style democracy have been exposed and further fermented, which is consuming the competitiveness of those countries.
Those Western political elites want to eliminate the challenge of democratic diversity and change the competition rules in the globalization era by stifling China's development. However, China is a super-scale market and a powerful country. It's a dead end if they attempt to solve their own difficulties by changing China.
The Chinese and Western democratic systems could learn from each other and carry out sound competition. Unfortunately, some political elites in the US and West stubbornly seek to turn the two systems into antagonistic relations. Then they will have to bear the long-term consequences of their actions. China will develop faster than them in the long run. After passing a critical point -it's doomed to appear in future - the US and West's political confidence will be greatly shaken. Their unrealistic flattery of Western-style democracy will collapse.
The world is seeing active reflections and hot debates over democracy. Which kind of democracy is good is not defined by a war of words. The good democracy must effectively provide economic and social development with a steady stream of impetus and promote the well-being of the broad masses of people. Facts will be the best judge.
China is making great efforts to bring benefits to its people and contribute positively to building a community with a shared future for mankind. We are earnest explorers of a democratic system that fits our own conditions. Our efforts and success have received much attention and praises from a vast number of developing countries. We have expanded people's political vision, and contributed important experiences.
Developing countries generally face pressure from the US and the West. Due to their size, many countries are unable to withstand the pressure to explore an independent democratic paradigm. China's practice is in line with their interests, bringing the light of freedom to the world when it comes to the national choice of development path.
Democracy not 'patent' of the West; US democracy summit a 'huge irony' aiming to split world: senior CPC official
Photo: Zhao Juecheng/GT
The US' democracy summit convened next month with the attempt to "revive" Western democracy amid mounting democratic problems in their countries is a huge irony, as its purpose is simply to suppress other countries and divide the world into different camps, a senior Chinese official said on Friday.
Jiang Jinquan,director of the Policy Research Office of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, made the remarks at Friday's press conference on the sixth plenary session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
He said democracy is not a patent of the West, nor can it be defined by the West. Western democracy is a democracy dominated by capital, a democracy of the rich, not true democracy.
Some Western countries have shown a hollowing out of democracy,triggering dissatisfaction among their fellow people, but they are still trying to impose their democratic model on other countries. Color revolutions in recent years ago have resulted in disasters to local people, which the people of the world have become increasingly aware of, Jiang said in response to a question on comparison between China's whole-process people's democracy and Western democracy.
Jiang listed several polls as an example. According to a new survey from the Pew Research Centre, 57 percent of global respondents and 72 percent of Americans said that US democracy used to be a good example but has not been recently.
According to an NPR poll, 81 percent of US adults say the future of US democracy is under threat.
In contrast, two recent polls released by a US polling agency show that Chinese people's satisfaction with the CPC and the Chinese government is 95 percent and 98 percent, respectively.
Democracy is not for decoration, but for solving people's problems. Whether a country is democratic or not depends on whether its people are the masters of the country, whether its people have the right to vote and more importantly, whether they have the right to participate widely. It depends on what promises are made during the election process, but more importantly, it depends on how many of these promises are fulfilled after an election, Jiang said.
"Democracy is not true if the people are awakened only at the time of voting and then fall into hibernation, if they can only listen to the election slogans but have no say after the election, if they are favored only at the time of campaigning and then are left out after the election," Jiang said.
Jiang said the CPC has realized that China's political civilization and political system must be deeply rooted in the mind of Chinese society. Copying other countries' political systems will not work and may even destroy the country's future.
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has adhered to the path of political development under socialism with Chinese characteristics and upheld the leadership of the Party and the position of the people as masters of the country, has resolutely resisted the erosion and influence of the Western political trend of so-called "constitutionalism", ruling party rotation, and developed a democratic road of whole-process people's democracy, Jiang said.
The Chinese people have a high degree of confidence in their political system,and the fundamental reason lies in the fact that whole-process people's democracy is highly democratic, fully fledged and deeply welcomed by the Chinese people. This is true people's democracy, Jiang said.
To break out of its paralysis, the West needs to take a hard look and address three key challenges, Rethinking Democracy, the Social Contract, and Globalization
China holds a commemorative meeting to mark the 110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing at 10 a.m. on Saturday. Chinese President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, attends the meeting and delivers an important speech. #1911Revolution
Will China Mainland Unite With Taiwan Before 2025?
https://youtu.be/v7BkyX7HfZI>
https://youtu.be/QvXEc7oaKgI
Xi: The best way we commemorate Sun Yat-sen is to carry forward his lofty spirit
Xi stresses peaceful reunification, calls Taiwan secessionists 'serious threat' to national rejuvenation
Chinese President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, delivers an important speech at a commemorative meeting marking the 110th anniversary of the Revolution of 1911 at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Oct 9, 2021.Photo:Xinhua
At a gathering marking the 110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Saturday, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the Taiwan question will be resolved along with national rejuvenation and warned that secessionists are a serious threat to that mission, and that those who betray the country will face the trial of history.
Analysts from both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan told the Global Times that Xi's remarks sent a clear and strong signal to the secessionist group within the island and foreign forces who are supporting or encouraging Taiwan secessionism - the national reunification of China will and must be realized and no one can stop the process, the Chinese mainland has both strength and unshakeable determination to realize this common hope for the whole Chinese nation.
The Communist Party of China (CPC), who inherited the 1911 Revolution leader Sun Yat-sen's idea and unfulfilled mission in national rejuvenation and reunification, wants to address Taiwan question by peaceful means, but whether the question to be solved peacefully or not, the secessionists who betray and try to separate the country, will eventually be punished, commentators noted.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
The Revolution of 1911, which was initiated by revolutionists represented by Sun Yat-sen, ended the 2,000 years of imperial rule in China and paved the way for profound social changes and ideological emancipation. Sun is hailed as a great national hero, patriot and a great pioneer of China's democratic revolution, according to Xi's speech.
The aspiration of national revitalization that was deeply held by Sun, longing for a bright future for the Chinese nation that was cherished by the pioneers of the Revolution, and the great dream that the Chinese people have aspired and striven toward in modern times have all become or are becoming a reality, Xi said.
He noted that the 1911 Revolution commemoration will inspire national rejuvenation endeavor.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Chinese communists were the most steadfast supporters, loyal partners and faithful successors of Sun, Xi said, noting that the complete reunification will be realized along with the country's national rejuvenation.
Huang Chih-hsien, an attendee from Taiwan who witnessed Xi's speech at the Great Hall of the People and an expert on Taiwan affairs, told the Global Times on Saturday that "it was truly touching when I saw the mainland is sincerely commemorating Sun and the 1911 Revolution, while the Taiwan authorities are trying to forget or stay away from Sun and his political ideals, some of them even trying to cut off ties with the Chinese mainland and Chinese nation."
Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, Li Zhanshu, Wang Yang, Wang Huning, Zhao Leji, Han Zheng and Wang Qishan attend a commemorative meeting marking the 110th anniversary of the Revolution of 1911 at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Oct 9, 2021.Photo:Xinhua
Sun is the founding father of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Republic of China (1912-1949), and after Sun's death, his successor Chiang Kai-shek betrayed the revolution and Sun's policy to work with the CPC, and launched massacres and a civil war against the Communist Party of China (CPC). Eventually the KMT was defeated by the CPC and escaped to Taiwan in 1949.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Warning to secessionists
National reunification by peaceful means best serves the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole, including compatriots in Taiwan, Xi remarked at the gathering.
"Compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits should stand on the right side of history and join hands to achieve China's complete reunification and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation," Xi said.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
It has become a common practice for the Chinese mainland to solemnly commemorate the Revolution of 1911 at its decadal anniversaries such as the 100th and the 110th anniversaries, but this time, Xi delivered very strong and sharp remarks with a clear message to "Taiwan independence" secessionists, Yok Mu-ming, former president of the pro-reunification New Party of Taiwan, told the Global Times on Saturday.
"If those secessionists don't stop, the mainland will take relevant measures," Yok said. Yok even predicted that the Taiwan question "will be resolved within two years."
He also mentioned on his personal social media accounts earlier that the deadline for solving the Taiwan question will be 2024. "Hopefully, we'll embrace the reunification and the national rejuvenation together."
A commemorative meeting marking the 110th anniversary of the Revolution of 1911 is held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Oct 9, 2021.
A Beijing-based expert on Taiwan affairs who asked for anonymity said the CPC and the Chinese mainland have repeatedly shown great patience and sincerity in solving the Taiwan question peacefully, and that Xi's latest remark is also signaling to compatriots in Taiwan, as well as the international community, that the mainland's sincerity and policy remains unchanged so far.
But unfortunately, the current situation is like an old saying in China, "the trees prefer stillness but the wind will not cease," he said.
"There are some forces, especially the separatist ruling Democratic Progressive Party on the island and the US that are encouraging the DPP to seek secession, are trying to challenge the mainland's sincerity and patience by increasing the degree of provocation, including strengthening military cooperation and diplomatic interactions," said Li Fei, a professor with the Taiwan Research Institute at Xiamen University.
"All of these dangerous acts have challenged the bottom-line of the mainland and seriously offended the Chinese people, the US and the Taiwan secessionists are trying to hijack the people on the island to seek their own interests under the risk of war," Li said.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Xi sent severe warning to the secessionists at his speech that, "Taiwan independence" secessionism is the biggest obstacle for the national reunification, and also a serious threat to national rejuvenation. "Anyone who intends to betray and separate the country will be distained by the people and judged by the history," he said, receiving rapturous applause from the audience.
Three long rounds of applause sounded through the Great Hall of the People when Xi mentioned Taiwan question and sent warning to the secessionists.
The anonymous expert in Beijing said this is a strong signal and warning to agitators on the island and leaders of the DPP and other secessionists - whether the Taiwan question to be resolved by peaceful mean or non-peaceful mean, secessionists will be judged and punished eventually.
"Maybe there is no need to wait that long, some of them might get punished during the process of the national reunification. We, the mainland, have enough strength and determination to make them pay for their crime of secessionism," he said.
Huang who hails from Taiwan said the political parties on the island today should also be loyal to Sun's idea, but unfortunately, they have failed to inherit the mission, and some of them even try to forget Sun, to betray his dream of national rejuvenation and reunification and to serve US hegemony to contain mainland and seek secessionism.
The DPP and the authorities under its control even "try to stop and threaten the people from Taiwan from attending the gathering for commemorating the 1911 Revolution," Huang said, stressing that "this is truly laughable," urging people in Taiwan to "wake up" and see "who is walking on the path started by Sun and who has betrayed Sun's ideals."
Vessels in the Taiwan Straits, July 20, 2017. Photo:CGTN
Destined to be reunified
The ceremony was held amid rising tensions across the Taiwan Straits after US media reported that there were two dozen US troops secretly deployed on the island of Taiwan, helping to train local troops while the secessionist DPP has been colluding with external forces in escalating the confrontation by engaging in salami-slicing tactics.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Xi emphasized that the Taiwan question is a Chinese internal matter, which can't be interfered by any external forces. Nobody should underestimate Chinese people's determination, will and capability in safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Taiwan question arose out of the weakness and chaos of the Chinese nation and will be resolved as national rejuvenation becomes a reality, Xi said, noting that the historical mission of achieving complete reunification will be realized and must be realized.
Li said with the increasing of China's national strength, the difficulties in realizing national reunification or resolving Taiwan question will be reduced day by day, whether for peaceful solution or the non-peaceful ones.
"Although the US is still being vague on its policy on the matter and trying to use Taiwan question as a card to contain China, one day, when the mainland decides to solve the question once and for all, Washington will abandon the Taiwan secessionists and run away, just like abandoning the former Afghan government and Hong Kong rioters and separatists," said the anonymous Beijing-based expert.
Root cause of tensions
Mainland's high-profile commemoration of the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution sparked slanderous comments from DPP authorities, which called the commemoration "distortion of history."
In response to such comments, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesperson of Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said on Saturday that the DPP's provocation in seeking secession is the root cause of current tensions across the Taiwan Straits, and biggest threat to regional peace and stability.
"Taiwan independence" secessionism is a dead end, and has nothing to do with so-called "democracy and freedom."
"DPP authorities insist on their secessionist stance and gang up with foreign forces to betray the interests of the Chinese nation. These behaviors are completely against the spirit, moral integrity and unfulfilled wishes of Sun Yat-sen. What qualification do they think they have to make comment on Sun and 1911 Revolution?" Ma said.
Secessionist DPP cannot abduct will of 23 million Taiwan compatriots
Tsai Ing-wen Photo:VCG
One day after Chinese President Xi Jinping warned Taiwan secessionists and stressed that the Taiwan question will be resolved along with national rejuvenation in his speech on Saturday marking the 110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution, Taiwan regional leader Tsai Ing-wen continued to deceive the international community and Taiwanese people by hiding the truth that secessionist authorities on the island are the root cause of cross-Straits tensions.
Held under the theme "Forming a democratic alliance and collecting friends from all over the world," this year's Double Ten Day, a public holiday in the island of Taiwan originally meant to commemorate the Chinese Revolution of October 10, 1911, has been seen by observers across the Straits as yet another farce staged by the ruling secessionist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its leader Tsai that serves to promote their desinization agenda and daydream of a "two-state theory."
In an obvious betrayal of 1911 Revolution leader Sun Yat-sen's idea and unfulfilled mission of Chinese national rejuvenation and reunification, the DPP leaders including Tsai herself and Taiwan's "Legislative Yuan" leader Yu Shyi-kun did not mention Sun's name or spirit even once on Thursday morning, and Tsai referred to the region with the awkward term "Republic of China Taiwan."
Sun is the founding father of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Republic of China (1912-1949), and after Sun's death, his successor Chiang Kai-shek betrayed the revolution and Sun's policy of working with the Communist Party of China (CPC), and launched massacres and a civil war against the CPC. Eventually, the KMT was defeated by the CPC and fled to the island of Taiwan in 1949.
On Saturday, at a high-profile gathering marking the 110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Chinese President Xi said the Taiwan question will be resolved along with national rejuvenation and warned that secessionists are a serious threat to that mission, and that those who betray the country will face the trial of history.
Xi emphasized that the Taiwan question is a Chinese internal matter that no external forces can interfere with. Nobody should underestimate the Chinese people's determination, will and capability in safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, he said.
In Sunday's speech, Tsai didn't state the fact that this year's Double Ten Day mark the 110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution during her speech on Sunday morning, but only stressed how the "country" had advanced from poverty to prosperity in the past "72 years" (since the Republic of China regime fled to the island of Taiwan in 1949), and it was the faith in "ensuring the sovereignty and guarding the homeland" that was the key to supporting the island of Taiwan's survival and fostering of democracy.
Chang Ya-chung, the president of the Sun Yat-sen School in Taiwan and a member of the KMT, Taiwan's major opposition party, viewed Sunday's farce by Tsai and the DPP as an extension of their long time agenda of cutting off the history of Taiwan from the Republic of China's, in denial of the "one-China principle," in order to promote the idea of "two nations."
Tsai also stated Sunday that it is imperative to conduct so-called equal conversation to resolve cross-Straits differences, which is an apparent change of her wording from last year when she called for the Chinese mainland to have "peaceful dialogue" with the island in 2020.
Observers said such changes indicate nothing more than another step further into Tsai and the DPP's secessionist path, which is a dead end. As Tsai refused to acknowledge the 1992 Consensus, jeopardizing the political ground on which the two sides can conduct any talks, the Chinese mainland authority would never accept such proposal of "equal conversation", Chang told the Global Times on Sunday.
Tsai said she hoped for eased ties between the two sides across the Straits, and claimed the island would not make any rash advance, while emphasizing that it would not surrender to pressure either.
She vowed to continue to hone the island's defense capability, display self-defense determination, and make sure no one can force them onto a path laid out by the Chinese mainland.
The DPP leader also outlined plans to make an amendment to the "constitution" that would serve to protect so-called freedom and democracy on the island.
What Tsai and the DPP are trying to achieve here is to destroy the essence of the "constitution", Chang said, noting that Tsai would only follow the steps of previous secessionist leaders such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian to accumulate small changes toward an eventual qualitative change.
Although Tsai has not disclosed details of these "constitutional reforms" on the island, the act itself would open a Pandora's box and lead to steps toward making Taiwan secessionism legitimate, allowing the ruling party to make adjustments at will, Zhang Wensheng, a deputy dean of the Taiwan Research Institute at Xiamen University, told the Global Times on Sunday. "She is rashly advancing secessionism despite claiming a willingness to maintain the status quo with unwavering kindness."
Zhang criticized Tsai's Sunday speech as being filled with resentment against the Chinese mainland and for suggesting the latter was an enemy state, which fully shows the DPP leader's secessionist nature and its agenda of promoting the "two-state theory."
Picturing Taiwan as the front of the Western democratic and free world against the expansion of authoritarian in order to win the support and sympathy of the international community is a complete provocation, Zhang said.
If the DPP authority continues such provocative acts, the mainland will have no choice but take it to the battlefield, he warned.
China's internal affair
Tsai's speech advocates "Taiwan secessionism" and incite confrontation between the two sides of Taiwan Straits, distorting facts and holding the Taiwan public hostage in the name of "consensus and solidarity", while colluding with foreign forces to provoke the mainland and seek secessionism, Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said in a statement on Sunday night.
"Our crackdown against Taiwan secessionists is targeting the DPP and secessionist forces, rather than Taiwan compatriots. The DPP cannot fool the Taiwan public or the international community by creating bad blood and obscuring the facts," the spokesperson said.
Ma slammed the DPP authority, saying that ever since taking power, it has shown no political ability other than creating conflicts between people and dividing Taiwan society. Trying to package secessionist populism as so-called democracy and freedom, and claiming Taiwan is becoming better and better, the DPP has greatly underestimated the intelligence of the Taiwan public.
The future of Taiwan should be decided by all Chinese people including the 23 million Taiwan compatriots. The DPP cannot abduct the will of 23 million Taiwan people, let alone stop the major trend of historical development, Ma concluded.
The self-deceiving Tsai and other DPP leaders repeatedly hailed the so-called support from the "great democratic allies" and lauded the "helping hands" from countries including the US, Japan, Australia, Czech and Lithuania.
Tsai's failure to handle cross-Straits relations properly is the root cause of the current tense situation and labeling the island as the frontline of the so-called democratic world is self-deceiving and a desperate attempt to fool the 23 million compatriots living on the island so she can extend her political life and benefit the DPP, Chang noted.
How many of the 23 million people living on the island would blindly follow Tsai to fight a war with the Chinese mainland, on what grounds, and how many of its so-called allies could Taiwan really rely on if a cross-Straits war breaks out, said Yang Lixian, a research fellow at the Beijing-based Research Center of cross-Straits Relations.
Two Su-35 fighter jets and a H-6K bomber fly in formation on May 11, 2018. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) air force conducted patrol training over China's island of Taiwan.Photo:China Military
Strength matters
As part of the Sunday event, the armed forces on the island of Taiwan showcased some of its weapons in a parade, including Apache helicopters, F-16V fighter jets and Hsiung Feng III missiles.
Also on Sunday, aircraft of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) approached the island of Taiwan again, media outlets on the island reported, citing open radio broadcasts and flight path records.
Three PLA aircraft - two J-16 fighter jets and a Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft - entered Taiwan's self-proclaimed southwest air defense identification zone on Sunday, the island's defense authorities said later in the day.
The defense authorities on the island have reported 150 PLA aircraft flying into the island's self-proclaimed air defense identification zone between October 1 and Thursday, the National Day holiday in the Chinese mainland, breaking the record in terms of scale three times in the process.
Also on Sunday, the mainland's China Central Television published a report introducing a recent PLA amphibious landing exercise. The drill, organized by the PLA 73rd Group Army in a sea area south of East China's Fujian Province, which is close to the Taiwan Straits, featured troops conducting beach assaults with charge boats, drones and laser engagement systems, with the aim of comprehensively honing the forces' skills in carrying out such tasks.
The PLA activities again demonstrated the overwhelming advantages the PLA has over the armed forces on the island of Taiwan, which is now also being acknowledged by many on the island, a Chinese mainland military expert who requested anonymity told the Global Times on Sunday.
The island's display of its warplanes, armored vehicles and missiles in the Sunday event, on the other hand, exposed the fact that its best weapons are no match for the Chinese mainland's, when people compare them to what the PLA has displayed in events such as the Airshow China 2021 and the National Day military parade in 2019, the expert said.
Resisting reunification by force will only bring doom more quickly to Taiwan secessionists, the expert said.
The Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP), the ruling party on the island of Taiwan, has been bribing
some Somaliland politicians and families for a long time in exchange for
support to
Taiwan's regional leader Tsai Ing-wen on Tuesday published an article, entitled "Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy", in Foreign Affairs Magazine, claiming that "If Taiwan were to fall, the consequences would be catastrophic for regional peace and the democratic alliance system." It seems that the Tsai authorities are really scared, anticipating that their secessionist attempt has gone to a virtual dead end. They, as an anti-China outpost of US' Indo-Pacific Strategy will sooner or later be wiped out by the Chinese mainland, but they have a severe lack of confidence that the US and its allies will fully defend the island. In this context, Tsai penned the article to underline the current peril, calling on the US and its allies to strengthen their commitment to the Taiwan island and to deter the Chinese mainland.
Tsai repeatedly used the word "democracy" in the article, like a cultist regarding what she called "democracy" as a talisman. However, everyone can see that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has hijacked Taiwan's democracy and has turned it into an extreme ideology to confront the Chinese mainland. It is clear to all that Taiwan has bitten off more than it can chew. There was a period of peaceful cooperation between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan island during which both sides sought shared development. But it was ruined by the DPP, which is now quenching thirst with poison. Taiwan's practices of acting as a strategic outpost against China in exchange for US' protection is the craziest gamble in the history of international politics.
Now they are also in the fear of losing everything. In an interview with Australia's ABC News on Monday, Joseph Wu, leader of the external affairs of the Taiwan island, said the island is preparing for war with the Chinese mainland, drawing on Australia for help. And Tsai, in Foreign Affairs magazine warns Taiwan's "fall" will be catastrophic for the US and its allies. Their fate is bound to be a catastrophe when they attempt to separate Taiwan from the China. The further the DPP authorities go down the path in colluding with external forces, the closer they move to their tomb.
There is no force in the world whose will to "defend Taiwan" is stronger than China's will to fight against secession and achieve reunification. To be precise, they are completely incomparable. China dares to have a life-and-death fight against any force that hinders our reunification, but no force dares or is willing to fight to the death against the world's second largest economy, as well as a nuclear power, in order to prevent China's reunification.
Tsai authorities understand this point. When they never say uncle, they are quietly shivering, and they will increasingly turn to their masters for help.
US views China as an enemy based on a slanted world view
China US Photo:IC
Will war inevitably break out between China and the United States? To some Americans it seems inescapable. This view has been promoted by the American elite over the years, and is still quite popular in the United States. Why?
International relations scholars in the United States and Europe have no doubt expounded and established their thoughts on international relations and foreign policy according to the thoughts of Machiavelli, who believed that there is no altruism or justice. In his famous political treatise, the prince becomes accustomed to doing evil, and is not troubled by being blamed for cruelty. Compassion is dangerous.
American politicians treat China as a rival to a large degree based on their slanted belief in the "Thucydides Trap", a rising power is bound to challenge an existing power, and the existing power is bound to respond to the threat, and war becomes inevitable. This phrase is based on an assertion by Thucydides, the famous Ancient Greek historian, that the war between Sparta and Athens was due to the fear instilled in the established dominant power of Sparta by the rising power of Athens.
Machiavelli famously asserted: "The end justifies the means." Because of this source of thought, western liberalism or western realism are only instrumental. Both have no intention to coexist and compromise with the existing world. Both have the strong exclusivity of religious fundamentalism, both seek the highest purity, or extreme, of theory and practice according to their own logic and ideas. The difference is that pessimistic Western realism insists its own interests and wants to eliminate imaginary opponents and conquer an "uncertain" world by force. Optimistic Western liberalism sees the non-Western world as an "opportunity". Its goal and means are to individualize, fragment and demonize the non-Western world with various "freedoms" of western standards, so that it has no intention or ability to respond to the flow of western capital and the spread of self-centered consciousness.
The biggest problem with America is that Americans don't understand what empathy is and how-to walk-in others' shoes. What they pursue is to impose their ideas and ideology on any other countries that have different ideologies or political systems. America promotes democracy in the world like a doctor prescribing Viagra to all his patients, whether young or old. It acts with a combination of missionary zeal and solipsism -- an inability even to conceive of another way of looking at the world.
Many Americans have a one-sided understanding of China. They need a new understanding of China and the Chinese spirit. The Chinese spirit is the spirit to build the Great Wall. The people who built the Great Wall were definitely not invading, but making the statement, "if you don't invade me, I will never invade you".
Equally, the spiritual pillar of the Chinese nation is represented by a diagram, known as the Taiji. The Taiji diagram is Yin with Yang, Yang with Yin, Yin and Yang grow together. The western way of thinking is a dichotomy of one cut and two halves, The future trend of the world's way of thinking should be one of Yin and Yang, not two. If western civilization is the white hemisphere of the Taiji chart, masculine culture, with strong extroversion, then Chinese culture is the black hemisphere, belonging to the feminine culture, with strong inclusiveness. Chinese culture has white in black. That is to say, Chinese culture can tolerate western civilization. Therefore, western civilization should also tolerate Chinese culture, rather than provoke a "clash of civilizations".
There is only one country today whose growth depends on 70 years of effort, no plundering, no colonization, that depends on the separation of migrant workers' families, on the export of resources of the whole country, on the export of the whole environment, and on how much it costs to change from foreign trade, bit by bit. Accumulated national strength is the reason it is what it is today.
Chinese culture is a heterogeneous culture based on harmony, it treats humanity as a continuity which is a master key to solving the cultural confusion.
China has not portrayed itself as the enemy of the West, but rather the enemy within the West has led to a hostile view of China. That enemy is the West's view of the world.
They misunderstand China in their imagination based on their incorrect recognition of the law of the jungle which refers to natural selection and survival of the fittest. The law of the jungle does not apply to human civilization, which is made up of intelligent creatures, unlike the wild, a competitive primeval forest. In the process of the development of human society, with the continuous improvement of the level of civilization, people do not remain in the state of animals in the jungle. Power is the truth in human society. Even if it exists temporarily, it will not last long. Human society will eventually destroy itself if it follows the law of the jungle.
Chinese culture celebrates the relational values of deference and interdependence. It respects the uniqueness of the particular. It promotes understanding and consensus among different civilizations through equal exchanges. It promotes the common values of mankind through mutual learning. Human beings should work together to build a community with a shared future for all, create a beautiful tapestry of human civilization, and share a harmonious and prosperous global village. The Chinese culture of harmony is not a part of an ideology - it is a moral vision, a way of being in the world. To regard it as a cultural resource is not romanticism, but arises from necessity. Although it has been ignored for a couple of hundreds of years, this culture of China deserves its place at the table. It has a lot to offer and is going to make a difference in the world.
The international community has to get past the ideology of individualism. We have to take responsibility for not only thinking of ourselves, but for what we mean for other actors who share the world in which we live. If your neighbor does better, you do better. It is that simple. The world is interdependent; it is is organic; we are all in play at the same time.
By Pu Jingxin - The author is Non-Resident Research Fellow, Global Engagement Academy, Shandong University (Weihai) China; Associate professor, School of Foreign languages , Nanjing University of Finance and Economics. Pu Jingxin@126.com
At a gathering marking the
110th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution on Saturday, Chinese President
Xi Jinping said the Taiwan question will be resolved along with national
rejuvenation and warned that secessionists are a serious threat to that
mission, and that those who betray the country will be judged by
history.
- National reunification by peaceful
means best serves the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole,
including compatriots in Taiwan.
- The complete reunification of
A grand commemorative meeting marking the 110th anniversary of
the 1911 Revolution is held on Saturday in Beijing. The historical
mission of the revolution was to overthrow the monarchy, establish a
republic and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. And
the reunification of the country is undoubtedly an indispensable part of
the great
South-East Asian Nations cautions over AUKUS Pact | WION USA Direct | Latest World English News
https://youtu.be/69ilKe8KFAg
ASEAN: Concerned Over AUKUS Alliance! QUAD Sidelined?
https://youtu.be/ezOKGzAHLGo
Power Crunch Is Just the First Step!
The entry of the new trilateral defence pact in the asia-pacific region has divided South-East Asian countries and negated the quest for a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality.
AUSTRALIA’S moniker of “deputy sheriff” is back in circulation again with last week’s announcement of the Aukus trilateral military alliance involving the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
The agreement, under which the US and the UK would provide Australia the technology to build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time, was declared in a joint virtual press conference by US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian PM Scott Morrison on Sept 15.
The three Anglo Saxon nations declared that the new deal is meant to protect and defend shared interests in the Indo-pacific amid “regional security concerns which had grown significantly”.
The epithet “deputy sheriff of the US” first gained infamy 22 years ago when then Australian PM John Howard used it in an interview to describe the country’s projected role in regional peacekeeping.
In an interview with The Bulletin magazine, he defined Australia as a medium-sized, economically strong regional power, “acting in a deputy role to the US in maintaining peace”.
He also said Australia had a responsibility within its region to do things “above and beyond”, bringing into play its unique characteristics as a Western country in Asia.
The remarks led to both ridicule at home and diplomatic backlash from regional leaders who rebuked
Australia for taking orders from the United States while being geographically closer to Asia. History repeats itself often, and Australia’s partnership in Aukus has brought the focus back on that lackey image.
Besides drawing indignation from China, which condemned the deal as “extremely irresponsible, narrowminded and severely damaging regional peace”, Aukus – the abbreviation representing the initials of the three countries – has also ruffled feathers within Asean and divided the 10-member grouping.
Based on the reactions over the past few days, two camps have emerged. Malaysia and Indonesia are clearly opposed to it on the grounds that it would unsettle the region. Thailand, a traditional US ally which has a close economic relationship with China, is also of the view that the security pact would undermine stability.
On the opposite side, the Philippines has taken a totally contrary stand. It has declared support, with its foreign minister Teodoro Locsin arguing that Aukus would address the imbalance in the forces available to the Asean member states and that the enhancement of Australia’s military capacity would be beneficial in the long term.
Vietnam, which recently hosted US vice-president Kamala Harris, has not commented on the pact although its spokesperson Le Thi Thu Hang offered this ambiguous response: “All countries strive for the same goal.”
Meanwhile, Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has stated that the city state is “not unduly anxious” about the new strategic alliance because of its longstanding relationship with the three countries.
The four other countries in the grouping have been largely silent on the issue.
Malaysia was swift and forthright in making its position clear. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob warned that Aukus would spark a nuclear arms race and provoke other powers to act more aggressively in the region, especially in the South China Sea.
In his phone call to Morrison, he also raised the importance of abiding by existing positions on nuclearpowered submarines operating in Malaysia’s waters, including rules under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) and the Southeast Asian Nuclear-weapon-free Zone Treaty (SEANWFZ).
The questions being asked now are: How will China react to Aukus? Will it intensify the arms technology race in the region by increasing military expenditure for its navy or create more missile launch facilities, also known as underground missile silos, for the storage and launching of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS)?
That is what is being predicted by the hawks in the US military establishment, who have been consistently exaggerating China’s supposed military threat.
Among the talk is that China would boost the number of missile silos to 100 over the next two decades. For the record, the US already has at least 450 such facilities.
It is no secret that China has been building up its navy although it is still a long way from matching the marine power of the United States or the United Kingdom with just two aircraft carriers and a third still under construction. In comparison, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers and the United Kingdom two, but only one has been commissioned.
The US has 72 submarines – all nuclear-powered – compared with China’s 56, out of which only six are nuclear-powered.
With the entry of this newfangled military pact, Asean nations are now caught in a quandary. The quest for a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in South-east Asia (Zopfan) declared on Nov 27, 1971, when the world was in the midst of a Cold War between the US and its Western allies and the USSR, looks like a distant dream today.
Zopfan was mainly aimed at preventing the world’s big powers from competing for influence and military prowess in the region.
The concept was inspired by the UN’S principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, abstention from threat or use of force, peaceful settlement of international disputes, equal rights and self-determination, and non-interference in the affairs of member states.
But as Dr Laura Southgate, a specialist in South-east Asian regional security and international relations, highlighted in a recent article in The Diplomat, Aukus has clearly exposed Asean’s lack of cohesion.
As she put it, driven by different threat perceptions and geo-strategic interests, it had become very difficult for Asean member nations to speak with one voice, although many states hope to maintain a balance between China and the US and its allies.
Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation by Niccolò Machiavelli: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.” The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
Indo-Pacific: AUKUS alliance causes anger in France and EU | DW News
https://youtu.be/8WpwHJV6TG4
China and France criticise UK-US-Australia submarine pact
A Royal Australian Navy submarine is seen during a drill with the Indian Navy in Darwin on September 5. Australia is buying a fleet of nuclear submarines as part of a new defence pact. Photo: TNS
The new US security pact with Australia and Britain shows Biden’s approach in building overlapping alliances and partnerships in dealing with its China challenge
THE empire strikes back. So it seemed as United States President Joe Biden announced recently at a press conference attended virtually by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his British counterpart Boris Johnson, the conclusion of a new military and security agreement between their three nations.
The agreement smacks of the old “Anglo” arrangements made a century ago between what used to be called the “Mother Country” and two of her major English-speaking siblings. And President Biden’s jovial reference during the latest press conference to the Australian Premier as “that fellow Down Under” only heightened the “retro” feel of the entire enterprise.
But appearances can be deceiving, and what may look and sound like a blast from the past could well turn out to be a major pointer of the world of tomorrow. For there is little doubt that the new Aukus arrangement – as this pact is rather ungainly called – is already being rated as a fundamental step change in Asian and, perhaps, even global security structures.
Professor Rory Metcalf of the Australian National University and one of his country’s most prominent strategic experts, is not a man known to exaggerate. But on this occasion, no exaggeration seemed too much: Australia, he wrote after the Aukus deal was announced, “has crossed a strategic Rubicon, bitten the bullet, nailed its colours to the mast”. In short, no expression, however grand or over-used, is out of place in expressing the significance of the new deal.
French fury over subs deal
Following the announcement, most of the attention concentrated on the impact of the Aukus agreement on Australia’s existing contract with France for the delivery of a new generation of conventional, diesel electric powered submarines. That deal has been cancelled and will be replaced with the supply of nuclear-powered submarines based on Us-developed technology.
The French were predictably apoplectic at the loss of a contract for the construction of 12 Barracuda submarines, a mega deal worth at least Us$88bil in today’s prices, and a critical part of France’s struggle to maintain an indigenous naval industry.
Officials in Paris were particularly indignant about being kept in the dark by the Australians about their negotiations for a nuclear submarine replacement deal. French Foreign Minister Jean-yves Le Drian called the entire episode a “stab in the back”; junior politicians in Paris have used even more colourful language, and French officials have been steeling themselves for a prolonged legal battle with Australia over what they claim is a broken contract.
As is often the case with military deals which contain many confidential clauses, the conclusion may well be that both sides to the dispute are right.
The French may be correct to point out that Australia could have gone for the purchase of nuclear submarines back in 2016, when the initial deal was signed. It was Canberra that insisted on the diesel variety partly because the anti-nuclear mood was strong among Australians then, and one of the chief attractions of picking France’s Barracuda submarines at that time was precisely the fact that the submarines could be switched from diesel to nuclear power. So, it looks odd that the Australians are now ditching a French contract by arguing that it does not offer them the technology which they could have had from the start, but rejected.
However, the Australians may also be right in claiming that the French submarine project is both behind schedule and more than double the initial budget, and that the promises initially made by Paris to transfer 90% of the work to shipyards in Adelaide were subsequently whittled down to not more than half of the construction capacity, thereby failing to create the national Australian submarine manufacturing capability which Canberra craved.
But all these arguments, although weighty, are marginal. For what persuaded the Australian government to go for the deal was the unique access it offers to the technology which no other nation has, apart from the US and the United Kingdom.
Only six nations in the world have nuclear-powered submarines: Britain, China, France, India, Russia and the US. The Americans have never shared their technology with any other country apart from Britain, and even that technology-sharing deal was concluded back in the late 1950s.
There is no question, therefore, about the significance of the latest agreement for Australia. A senior American official who briefed the media about the Aukus deal on condition of anonymity underlined the “very rare” nature of the arrangement and the “extremely sensitive” technology that will be shared.
“This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects. I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in any other circumstances going forward; we view this as a one-off,” he told journalists.
The French were wondering why they were not offered a part in one shape or another in this Australia-britain-us triumvirate. The answer is quite simple and, of course, fully known in Paris.
The French have spent decades trying to develop technologies which are independent from the US and offered as alternatives to American platforms. President Emmanuel Macron uses every opportunity to urge the rest of Europe to develop “strategic autonomy” from the US. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Americans are taking France at its word and propose to respect French “autonomy” by excluding it from sensitive military projects.
The Five Eyes
In reality, the Aukus deal builds on almost 80 years of intelligence cooperation within the so-called Five Eyes arrangement in which the Australians, Brits and Americans are also joined by New Zealanders and Canadians. The unique flow of classified information between them served as not only the foundation for the current deal, but also the basis for common threat assessment.
Australia has decided that it needs nuclear-powered submarines because they are stealthier and can endure far longer periods submerged, but also because the submarine deal is a curtain-raiser to something far bigger: the development and transfer of technology with the Americans and British involving a variety of other fields, including cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum technology.
Furthermore, senior US officials are now talking about setting up “a new architecture of meetings and engagements” between relevant defence and technology teams from the three countries which will not only identify joint areas of research and development, but also promote “deeper interoperability” across the entire spectrum of a future battlefield. This is, to all intents and purposes, a new alliance.
And the longer-term political ramifications are just as substantial.
In a 30-minute phone call on Wednesday, the French and US presidents agreed to try to find a way forward and will meet in Europe at the end of next month.
But there is no doubt that the conclusion of the Aukus deal marginalises Europe. The Europeans have spent the past 18 months proclaiming their desire to elaborate a new policy towards the Indopacific region, and particularly towards China, one which will supposedly entail both a “critical engagement with China” and a friendly engagement with the US.
Yet when the chips were down, the only European partner the US was interested in enlisting was Britain. The fact that the announcement of the Aukus deal came literally hours before the European Union unveiled its own Asia policy paper only added to the continent’s sense of marginalisation.
The deal with Australia is also a huge boon for British PM Johnson. He was castigated for pulling Britain out of the EU, something which supposedly made his country irrelevant. But the Aukus pact seems to confirm Johnson’s claims that out of the EU, the Brits have plenty of global engagement alternatives. The deal with Australia also demolishes the argument that the Johnson government is not taken seriously in Washington.
The Aukus deal also ensures that Britain’s existing intelligence and technology cooperation links with the US are now being recast as part of a global effort to keep up with the perceived Chinese threat, a useful advantage for the British, who often fretted that, with the old confrontation against Russia now less important, the US would lose interest in cooperation with them.
America’s China strategy
But the most significant aspect is what the Aukus deal tells us about America’s long-term strategy on China.
For years, the discussion in many world capitals was about the feasibility of creating a broad, global Us-led coalition to contain China, one which includes most Asian countries, and mimics the Nato alliance in Europe during the Cold War. But that was never feasible in Asia, and probably was never even considered in Washington.
Instead, what President Biden is seeking to promote is several more restricted alliance and partnership arrangements, some overlapping and some complementing each other. The Quad is one such arrangement, the Aukus another, and there will be others in the offing.
The approach has the advantage of enhancing the existing hub-andspokes arrangements whereby the US is crucial to every single regional arrangement but is not presiding over a uniform region-wide alliance.
The overlapping nature of these arrangements is intended to increase the cost which China may have to pay in any future confrontation, but at the same time does not isolate the Chinese or condemn the region to a Cold War-style confrontation. Still, the Aukus military pact is not without its own potential difficulties.
The fact that it is seen as a public rebuff of France and of the EU is decidedly unhelpful. The US needs EU cooperation in Asia, and particularly French cooperation. Next to the British, the French have the most capable European military force, and the only one apart from the British with true long-range expeditionary capabilities. France is also a Pacific power: It has two million citizens in the region.
So, urgent steps must be taken to include France in any future regional projects.
Because of its privileged and exclusive nature, the Aukus deal can also create tensions with other US allies such as Japan and South Korea, which may wish to get similar technology-sharing deals.
So, it’s better if, after the initial publicity splash, the Aukus copies the example of America’s nuclear submarines and dives into the depth of secrecy, never to be talked of again. Most of its added value is by working behind the scenes.
There will also be political difficulties. Critics in Australia will claim that their country is losing its independence by getting too close to the US. And critics in Britain – including former prime minister Theresa May – are already warning that the Aukus deal makes the British too dependent on US policy towards China, with potentially grave consequences.
Still, none of this detracts from the conclusion that, in seeking to counter China, the US has lost none of its ability to innovate and surprise. And decision-makers in Beijing would be well advised to reflect on how their own actions of condemning Australia, boycotting Australian goods and, more recently, presenting a set of humiliating conditions to the Australians as a precondition for the restoration of normal relations have contributed to the creation of the Aukus alliance.
Far from achieving what Beijing would regard as Canberra’s “good behaviour”, the pressures have resulted in an Australia which will be better armed and more closely aligned with the US, precisely the outcome China sought to avoid.
Jonathan Eyal is the Europe correspondent at The Straits Times, a member of the Asia News Network (ANN), which is an alliance of 24 news media entities. The Asian Editors Circle is a series of commentaries by editors and contributors of ANN.
When
the 9/11 attacks hit New York and Washington in 2001 and the U.S. armed
forces went on full alert, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
got on the direct line to Moscow and told Vladimir Putin the United
States was not going to attack...
25 Sep 2021
Why AUKUS, Quad and Five Eyes anger China
The declared aim of a new defense agreement comprising the U.S., U.K. and Australia, christened AUKUS, is to maintain a “free and open IndoPacific,” with nuclearpowered submarines potentially on patrol. But you can add it to the list of arrangements among democracies attempting to counter China’s growing power. The so-called Quad partnership, created after the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, and even the World War II-era “Five Eyes” spy alliance now seem overwhelmingly focused on Beijing. The growing web has provoked fury from Beijing and worries in some Asian states that the new groupings could fuel a dangerous arms race in the region.
Q: Q:What is AUKUS?
A: A:A new security partnership that will see Australia acquire nuclearpowered submarine technology – but not nuclear weapons – from the U.S. and U.K. While it could take more than a decade for Australia to build its first sub, the agreement shows the U.S. seeking to form a more cohesive defense arrangement in Asia to offset China’s rapidly modernizing military. Australia has long tried to balance security ties with the U.S. and its close economic ties with China, insisting it didn’t need to pick sides. But Beijing’s barrage of punitive trade reprisals following Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s push for an investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic appears to have drastically changed the strategic calculus in Canberra.
Q: Q:Why are the submarines important?
A: A:Nuclear-powered vessels are vastly superior to their diesel-electric counterparts: They’re faster, can stay submerged almost indefinitely, and are bigger – allowing them to carry more weapons, equipment and supplies. Given Australia’s remote location and the fact its subs may operate in waters stretching from the Indian Ocean up to Japan, these are big pluses. Until now, only six nations – the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and India – have had the technology to deploy and operate nuclear-powered subs. France was enraged by the Aukus deal, which came as a surprise, because Australia simultaneously canceled a $66 billion agreement it had had with Paris for conventional subs.
Q: Q:What’s the Quad?
A: A:It brings the U.S., Japan, India and Australia together in an informal alliance of democracies with shared economic and security interests that span the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Formed to coordinate tsunami relief efforts, it lay dormant for years afterward until 2017, when it was revived under then-U.S. President Donald Trump as his administration sought to challenge China from every angle. Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, organized the first-ever gathering of the Quad leaders in March, at which they pledged to accelerate production of Covid-19 vaccines and distribute them across Asia. Although their statement doesn’t mention China, the talks came amid a flurry of U.S. diplomacy designed to build a common approach to dealing with Beijing.
Q: Q:What’s Five Eyes?
A: A:It’s a decades-old intelligence-sharing arrangement among the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It’s so good at keeping secrets that its existence wasn’t publicly revealed until the mid-2000s. It isn’t clear how much intelligence is shared, but most of whistle-blower Edward Snowden’s vast 2013 dump of classified U.S. National Security Agency data, for instance, was marked FVEY, meaning it was available to other Five Eyes members. Advocates say the collaboration was used to positive effect in the Afghanistan war as well as in counter-terrorism operations in the Philippines and East Africa. Snowden attacked it as unanswerable to democratic oversight by national governments. Cracks emerged this year over China, when New Zealand distanced itself from moves to broaden the group’s remit and take positions on issues such as Beijing’s human rights record.
Q: Q:Why so much focus on China?
A: A:Its rise has steadily become one of the biggest foreign policy challenges not just for the U.S., but for almost every Chinese neighbor and democracies around the world. China’s rapid military development is a particularly acute threat to neighboring countries such as India and the Philippines, which have active maritime or border disputes. But it also threatens the U.S. military presence that has underpinned Asia’s security architecture for decades. Researchers at the University of Sydney, for example, warned last year that China’s growing missile arsenal could wipe out America’s bases in Asia during the “opening hours” of any conflict. China’s global economic reach has also greatly expanded as state-owned companies buy up strategic assets such as ports around the world that could be harnessed in times of war. Its statecraft – spearheaded by “wolf warrior” diplomats – has also grown more aggressive, particularly throughout the Covid pandemic.
Q: Q:What’s China’s reaction?
A: A:It has consistently lashed out at what it calls a “Cold War mentality,” denouncing such partnerships as anti-China cliques. Chinese officials argued that Aukus will stoke an arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. In their view, its members are trying not just to compete, but to contain China’s rise – to throw a military net around it in vital waterways like the South China Sea and undermine the country’s economic development. Relations have been getting tenser on all sides. Biden, like Trump, has trained his energies on preventing the world’s second-largest economy from pulling ahead. Beijing also has sparred with the U.K. over Hong Kong and Canada over detained citizens, while Europe has called China a “systemic rival.”
US-Australia nuclear arms deal
On September 15, the heads of government of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the formation of AUKUS, "a new enhanced trilateral security partnership" among these three countries. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson joined US President Joe Biden to "preserve security and stability in the Indo-Pacific," as Johnson put it.
While China was not explicitly mentioned by these leaders at the AUKUS announcement, it is generally assumed that countering China is the unstated motivation for the new partnership. "The future of the Indo-Pacific," said Morrison at the press conference, "will impact all our futures." That was as far as they would go to address the elephant in the room.
Zhao Lijian of the Chinese Foreign Ministry associated the creation of AUKUS with "the outdated Cold War zerosum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical perception." Beijing has made it clear that all talk of security in the IndoPacific region by the US and its NATO allies is part of an attempt to build up military pressure against China. The BBC story on the pact made this clear in its headline: "Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China."
What was the need for a new partnership when there are already several such security platforms in place? Morrison acknowledged this in his remarks at the press conference, mentioning the "growing network of partnerships" that include the Quad security pact (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States).
A closer look at AUKUS suggests that this deal has less to do with military security and more to do with arms deals.
Morrison announced that the "first major initiative of AUKUS will be to deliver a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia." Two red flags were immediately raised: first, what will happen to Australia's pre-existing order of diesel-powered submarines from France, and second, will this sale of nuclear-powered submarines violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
In 2016, the Australian government made a deal with France's Naval Group (formerly known as Direction des Constructions Navales, or DCNS) to supply the country with 12 diesel-electric submarines.
A press release from then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his minister of defense (who is the current minister of foreign affairs), Marise Payne, said at the time that the future submarine project "is the largest and most complex defense acquisition Australia has ever undertaken. It will be a vital part of our defense capability well into the middle of this century."
Australia's six Collins-class submarines are expected to be decommissioned in the 2030s, and the submarines that were supposed to be supplied by France were meant to replace them. The arms deal was slated to cost (in Australian dollars) "about $90 billion to build and $145 billion to maintain over their life cycle," according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
Australia has now canceled its deal with the French to obtain the nuclear-powered submarines. These new submarines will likely be built either in the US by Electric Boat, a subdivision of General Dynamics, and Newport News Shipbuilding, a subdivision of Huntington Ingalls Industries, or in the UK by BAE Systems; BAE Systems has already benefited from several major submarine deals.
The AUKUS deal to provide submarines to Australia will be far more expensive, given that these are nuclear submarines, and it will draw Australia to rely more deeply upon the UK and US arms manufacturers.
France was furious about the submarine deal, with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian calling it a "regrettable decision" that should advance the cause of "European strategic autonomy" from the United States.
WHEN
the 9/11 attacks struck New York and Washington in 2001 and the United
States armed forces went on full alert, National Security adviser
Condoleezza Rice immediately got on the direct line to Moscow and told
Vladimir Putin not to worry:...
Last
week witnessed the aukward birth of a new security alliance — AUKUS —
bringing together Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (US), coupled with a deal involving the US and the UK building
eight nuclear attack...
The
story so far: On September 15, U.S. President Joe Biden, along with
Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson of Australia and the
U.K. respectively, announced the formation of a new trilateral security
partnership called...
The Hindu
26 Sep 2021
The AUKUS alliance: How not to win friends
Last
week witnessed the aukward birth of a new security alliance — AUKUS —
bringing together Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (US), coupled with a deal involving the US and the UK building
eight nuclear attack...
Hindustan Times (Lucknow)
25 Sep 2021
US rules out adding India or Japan to AUKUS pact
Washington,
Sept. 23: The United States has ruled out adding India or Japan to the
new trilateral security partnership with Australia and Britain to meet
the challenges of the 21st century in the strategic Indo-Pacific region.
On September...
24 Sep 2021
US rules out adding India or Japan to AUKUS pact
24 Sep 2021
Washington,
Sept. 23: The United States has ruled out adding India or Japan to the
new trilateral security partnership with Australia and Britain to meet
the challenges of the 21st century in the strategic Indo-Pacific region.
On September 15, US President Joe Biden, Australian PM Scott Morrison
and British PM Boris Johnson jointly announced the formation of the
trilateral security alliance AUKUS under which Australia would get a
fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
“The
announcement of AUKUS last week was not meant to be an indication, and I
think this is the message the President also sent to (French President
Emmanuel) Macron, that there is no one else who will be involved in
security in the Indo-Pacific,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki
told reporters at her daily briefing on Wednesday.
Ms
Psaki was responding to a question if countries like India and Japan
whose leaders would be in Washington this week for the first in-person
Quad summit would be made part of the new security alliance.
“On
Friday you’ll have the Australians there (for the Quad summit). But
then you also have India and Japan. Would you envision for them a
similar kind of military role that you’ve now defined for the
Australians?” a journalist asked.
“AUKUS?
What would it become? JAUKUS? JAIAUKUS?” Ms Psaki then quipped, before
giving an answer to the question. The trilateral security alliance
AUKUS, seen as an effort to counter China in
the IndoPacific, will allow the US and the UK to provide Australia with
the technology to develop nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
China has sharply criticised the trilateral alliance, saying such an
exclusive grouping has no future and will gravely undermine regional
stability and aggravate the arms race and hurt international
non-proliferation efforts.
The move also
angered France, an European ally of the US, which said it had been
“stabbed in the back” and publicly voiced its outrage at the AUKUS
alliance. It recalled its ambassadors to the US and Australia after the
AUKUS security deal was announced.
France
is furious. The announcement of the new Australia-UK-US alliance
(Aukus) and the ditching of a previous French-Australian submarine deal
has led France’s foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, to term the pact
“a stab in the back”.
Beijing’s...
24 Sep 2021
Quad leaders’ meeting first after pact agreed
Leaders
of the US, Japan, India and Australia were scheduled to meet in person
as a group for the first time on Friday for a summit expected to bring
progress on COVID-19 vaccines, infrastructure and technological
cooperation. The...
China Daily (Hong Kong)
25 Sep 2021
Another grouping
In
its first reaction to AUKUS, the new partnership between Australia, the
U.S. and the U.K., India has made it clear that it does not welcome the
announcement, nor does it wish to link AUKUS to Indian interests.
Foreign Secretary Harsh...
` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s
the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
...
Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!
` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing
for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation.
The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US
laws.
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
Vessels in the Taiwan Straits, July 20, 2017. Photo:CGTN
Highlights of Xi's speech at a meeting marking the 110th anniversary of 1911 Revolution Graphic: Xu Zihe/GT
